UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4745
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES EDWARD TYER, a/k/a James Edward Tyler, a/k/a Tyer
Edward James, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Tyler Edward James,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00043-CMH-2)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 6, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne D. Inge, LAW OFFICE OF WAYNE D. INGE, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Tyer was convicted of numerous offenses related
to a series of convenience store robberies that occurred in
October 2007. He received an aggregate sentence of 300 months—
considerably above his advisory Guidelines range of 78-97
months. We previously affirmed Tyer’s convictions but vacated
his sentence because the district court failed to make the
individualized assessment required by Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38 (2007). United States v. Monroe, 396 F. App’x 33 (4th
Cir. 2010) (No. 08-5050). Tyer now appeals the 300-month term
of imprisonment imposed at resentencing. We affirm.
I
At Tyer’s resentencing, defense counsel requested a
sentence within the advisory Guidelines range based on Tyer’s
difficult childhood and the fact that Tyer did not physically
assault any of the robbery victims. The court rejected this
request, finding that the nature and circumstances of the case
warranted a “substantial increase” above the Guidelines range.
In this regard, the court mentioned the number of robberies and
“the fact that this defendant carried a shotgun with him and had
the ammunition right at the side ready, which enabled the
robberies and the assaults to go forward.” The court
specifically found that these circumstances, coupled with the
2
need to protect the public and to deter Tyer and others from
similar conduct, outweighed his relatively young age and
difficult background.
II
After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
at 51. We vacated the sentence originally imposed because the
district court committed procedural error when it failed “to
adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation
for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
In evaluating a district court’s explanation for the
sentence imposed, we have held that, although a district court
must consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) sentencing
factors and explain the sentence, it need not explicitly refer
to § 3553(a) or discuss every factor on the record. United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). However,
the district court “must make an individualized assessment based
on the facts presented,” and apply the “relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The district
3
court must also “state in open court the particular reasons
supporting its chosen sentence” and “set forth enough to
satisfy” us that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and
has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). In other words, the reasons articulated by
the district court need not be “couched in the precise language
of § 3553(a),” as long as the reasons “can be matched to a
factor appropriate for consideration under that statute and
[are] clearly tied to [the defendant’s] particular situation.”
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 2007).
Tyer contends that the district court did not
acknowledge his contention that a less severe sentence was
warranted because, unlike codefendant Monroe, he did not assault
any of the robbery victims. To the contrary, the court
implicitly rejected this argument when it found that, by
carrying a shotgun with ammunition at the side, Tyer enabled the
robberies and assaults. Tyer also argues that the district
court did not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) when imposing
sentence, claiming that the explanation given by the court for
the selected sentence “could apply to any series of armed
robberies.” Especially in light of the court’s statement about
the number of robberies, the shotgun and the ammunition, it is
4
clear that the court’s explanation of the sentence addressed
Tyer’s conduct, not armed robberies in general.
We conclude that the court adequately explained its
reasons for the variant sentence and performed an appropriate
individualized assessment. Further, the sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable.
III
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5